|Topic:||Re:Strange training in Moscow|
Hello Ivan and all,|
The training WAS. So my intention is not to discuss on a training that I’ve not attended but your post is an opportunity to think about Learning in general. I hope to stimulate other interpretations because, to learn, we need to be opened and sometimes therefore destabilized.
First of all, NLP training is not only conscious but also much more. Even more learning does not finished at the end of the training, we all know about future pacing.
You wrote “Only 4 exercises“. Well, this presupposes something like “the more the better”, you can be right and not. Good practice makes good learning, not bad ones. And good practice requires an appropriated sequence of exercises, practice of the exercises and something debriefing. In short, all of this needs time…
Of course, during training you can repeat 10 variants of the same pattern (for example the classic anchoring format), and that can be interesting for modelling purpose, but it will not usually be 10 times better. At the structure levels, it will be 10 times the same stuff, something like a subject, a state, a context. Usually the subject wants to change or improve his state. Always the same story.
By the way, life itself is desperately simple at the structure level: you walk, work, eat, sleep, speak, play … And if you are a little wise, you enjoy being walking, working, eating, sleeping, speaking, and even playing. (Some play tennis, golf but are not happy with their game, strange isn’t it ?). Desperately simple in its structure, but much interesting in its application. Isn’t it ?
So in training, you can multiply exercises or not, the quality is not directly proportional. What do you think about epistemology, a main point describe in WITW.
Learning is not always synonym of pleasure. Good teachers don’t want that you like them, they try that you learn something valuable for you. Gurus want that you love and need them.
In classic educational system, when you have a problem, you ask to the teacher and he usually answers to your question. So you got one possible answer to your question. After 20 year of this diet, you have learn to ask question, not to answer to your questions. I think, that I’ve learn more from the silence of some master than from their answers. In term of MetaProgram, you shift from external to internal reference.
And what make an outstanding movie? This is the performance of both the “good” guys (the good example) and the “bad” guys (the counter-example). Even if you feel strange with the content of what is doing the “bad” guy, what is wonderful is his or her performance, it is his or her ability to interpret the script.
I hope that my remarks can be of help for somebody.
Sincerely Yours and good NLP tracking.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Strange training in Moscow||26/03/2004 10:05:59||Ivan Pomidorov|
|Re:Strange training in Moscow||26/03/2004 10:21:16||Ivan Pomidorov|
|Re:Strange training in Moscow||27/03/2004 22:40:58||nj|
|Re:Re:Strange training in Moscow||29/03/2004 08:57:43||Stephen Murrish|
|Re:Re:Re:Strange training in Moscow||30/03/2004 02:35:32||Tony|
|Re:Strange training in Moscow||30/03/2004 12:12:23||JPG|
|Re:Re:Strange training in Moscow||30/03/2004 22:55:58||Robert|
|Motivation to learn||31/03/2004 03:27:41||James Tsakalos|
|Re:Motivation to learn||31/03/2004 15:53:35||JPG|
|Re:Re:Motivation to learn||01/04/2004 00:57:31||James Tsakalos|
|Re:Re:Re:Strange training in Moscow||31/03/2004 08:51:27||Stephen Murrish|